The Obligatory Rush Thread

[Blackhole]

Thank you. I would request of you to take back your "intellectually dishonest" slam against everyone in this thread. No one debating against you has been intellectually dishonest, and hinders the debate when that term is pulled out. It's also an issue when you try to use the "Rush Supporter" descriptor on someone; it's as if you are calling them a nazi, and thus somehow all their arguments are deconstructed. It veers very close to an ad hominem attack.

Someone can be a "Rush Supporter" and still acknowledge the flaws in a character (even acknowledge Rush as a villain, which would make you a Rush Supporter as well).

You have no idea. I can write a 30 page paragraph on how actors or writers have been "sloppy" on SG-1 alone. It's not really sloppiness, but the fact that when a universe grows large enough, it becomes very difficult for people to keep everything in mind. Details are the first to go.

To wit: an Earth ship can make the trip to pegasus in 3 weeks. At that speed, the trip to the Icarus planet should have taken a matter of seconds, and yet obviously takes hours. If that happens in the very show itself, something that writers should be familiar with... what do you think happens with all the extra material like handbooks, interviews, etc.? The answer is, of course, that the writers ignore them. They have a hard enough time keeping track of all previous episodes, to even bother with what an actor may have said, or what was printed in a technical manual.

Not even technical advisers or lore advisers are immune to this. In the Warcraft series, one of the found events was that the Draeni corrupted Sargeras. The very first World of Warcraft expansion said that Sargeras corrupted the Draeni. And this was run by their special "Lore" person, who later admitted he made a big mistake!

That's why people generally don't consider anything out of episodes to be canon, because many times the show itself has problems keeping track of everything. The only way that out-of-show things become canon, is a term called "Word of God." Usually the creator who, after the show is over, confirms or denies specific things. That works best when it's a single person creating everything, but Stargate has had TONS of writers, actors, producers, directors, etc. Literally, hundreds of cooks with their hands in the pot. "Word of God" is next to impossible here, given the high number of cooks.

The thing is, no one arguing against you is cherry picking or being intellectually dishonest. We all just don't plain accept the video, and most of your posts were trying to convince us we should because it's canon; it's not. Very rarely has interviews been taken as canon, with the only real exceptions being once the show is over and/or the "Word of God" creator filling in the blanks, neither of which has happened here.

And since we're on the topic of canon, I'll restate when I've alluded to before: Canon is what occurs in the show; that's it. The reason is because so much of the extra stuff can contradict what happens later. Now, once something is over, any extra stuff that didn't contradict, you can accept as a personal canon(ie, fanon), but it's not "binding" unless blessed by the creators who say "Yes, this fits."

To close, I'll quote this bit from tv tropes canon page: "Of course, the concept of canon is almost entirely a fan-invention. The writers will ignore or include whatever facts they damned well like (which is not to say that the writers totally lack a sense of continuity, but it is a much weaker concept than "canon" as presented by fan communities)."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Canon

So, generally speaking, it's always been easier to shut out the extra stuff with regards to canon and stick to the show, which is what most fans do. You get yourself into a LOT less trouble that way.

I admit I am rather quite surprised that the several people that engaged in our debate felt so strongly about not considering anything beyond the show’s source material as canon and that it is probably the norm. The few author, creator, and actor commentaries I have encountered I have enjoyed and I assumed most fans would embrace this additional material because it added deeper insight into the story and intent and motivations of the characters. But I have never been a “fan” of TV shows and admit I will rarely read or listen to material beyond the show. My involvement in this forum has prompted my somewhat unusual interest beyond the show itself. Your explanation that most fans typically don't regard this type of commentary as canon is eye opening.

I misinterpreted the earlier attempts to downplay the validity of the MGM video as poor attempts to discredit it specifically rather than dissatisfaction with non show source material in general. If the posters had made it clearer how they felt about parenthetical material beyond the show itself I would have agreed with them and if I had realized that it is probably common then I wouldn’t have been so suspicious of their motives. Honestly, I thought the whole only the show is canon thing was a smokescreen and they were attempting to cherry pick their facts to support their views. It is that practice that I regard as intellectually dishonest because of its hypocrisy. It appears I may have judged them unfairly. To promote good relations, I am certainly not above apologizing for any misunderstandings on my part; so I offer one now.

Thank you for your explanations it certainly adds far more clarity to my understanding of TV show fandom.

[EllieVee]

How I see it is that the argument being made goes like this:

Rush supporter + disagreement = liar.

Weasel word it as 'intellectual dishonesty' but that's what it means.

[Blackhole]

How I see it is that the argument being made goes like this:

Rush supporter + disagreement = liar.

Weasel word it as 'intellectual dishonesty' but that's what it means.

Since you delight in being nasty, playing the victim and inflaming the situation when you can get away with it; I feel I must add in your particular case - if the shoe fits then...

[PG15]

Have to remember the kind of people you're talking to here. If it's not shown on screen, then it didn't happen! So Wray didn't do anything with the person she loves and is in a relationship with. And Matt and Chloe only had sex once, and the rest of the time they are chastely laying naked next to each other, like an even worse version of twilight.

I'm expecting Scott to sparkle.

False dichotomy. Saying that there is no proof that they did it =/= they definitely didn't do it. It just means that we can't be sure of what exactly they did, and thus they cannot be accused of definitely doing it.

You got that?

[EllieVee]

Blackhole, you have attacked me since I first disagreed with you about Rush. You don't seem to comprehend that disagreement is not an attack but whatever. Your opinion of me means nothing.

[Lahela]

We should only go with canon? Well, from what I've seen, and MY interpretation of those events portrayed on screen, I see there being no doubt that Rush manipulated everyone on his team. Franklin was the guy most likely to succeed and he took the bait. Look at that scene where the team is first introduced to the Chair...

Franklin: "Maybe it's really simple. Maybe it just tells you how to fly the ship."

Rush: (with a bit of snide smirk) "Well (wow?), I'm sure it's a bit more than that, but your point is well made..." (gives Franklin a light, "we're buddies" punch to the shoulder)

This is such a drastic change in Rush's character. Rush had to bite back a snide comment. At this point he needs these people so he did not "thank" Franklin for stating the bleeding obvious. Instead Rush built him up, gave him a bit of an ego stroke, made sure Franklin and the chair would have some alone time, and let the Chair and Franklin's own nature do the rest.

Rush knew Franklin was impatient. Look at the rest of the folks on that team. None of the others have a nature anything like Franklin. Franklin was dead meat the moment he got picked for that team.

regards,
G.

You've illustrated my point perfectly - without a canon answer, it is only speculation and interpretation. You and I draw very different conclusions from viewing the same scene, and until proven otherwise we could both be right, so both interpretations are equally valid. Ergo, nobody is being dishonest, intellectually or otherwise.

[Kaiphantom]

False dichotomy. Saying that there is no proof that they did it =/= they definitely didn't do it. It just means that we can't be sure of what exactly they did, and thus they cannot be accused of definitely doing it.

You got that?

It was a dig at something earlier, with the whole "Chloe is gonna get pregnant" discussion; people seriously argued "Chloe won't get pregnant because they only had sex once, and we know that because they only showed it once. The rest of the time they were just chastely sleeping together!" When the literary technique used since time began, that when two people are shown sleeping together, it meant they were having sex. Not always, but that's what creators intended.

So now I pull the argument up all the time: "Well, it hasn't been explicitly shown, SO IT DIDN'T HAPPEN LALALALALALA~!"

[Gollumpus]

You've illustrated my point perfectly - without a canon answer, it is only speculation and interpretation. You and I draw very different conclusions from viewing the same scene, and until proven otherwise we could both be right, so both interpretations are equally valid.

Yeah, except you're wrong, Wrong, WRONG!!!!! (runs for cover)

regards,
G.